Quote:

Original post by GemuhDesayinah makeshiftwings wrote: Quote: But on the flipside, realism is often a good source of ideas for fun. As has been said, most games have some grounding in reality. And most players appreciate realism in physics, graphics, and sound. But not so much in inventory management and death. So, I think including realism is an important aspect of game design for many genres; the key is to know where it will be fun and where it won't. Do you have any hard statistical evidence for your assertions? I don't know of any evidence that indicates that most players appreciate realism in physics, graphics and sound. Actually, given the preponderance and popularity of games that don't HAVE much realism in those areas, I'd venture to suggest that most players couldn't care less about it one way or the other.

The huge majority of 3d games tout their "photorealistic" graphics, and most games strive for realistic lighting models, shadows, etc. There's a cel-shading fad going on too, but the majority is still going for a photorealistic look for most things. Physics libraries are generally ONLY used when the physics are supposed to be realistic. Nobody puts Havok in their game and then messes with all the parameters to make the phsyics behave completely innacurately. 3d locational sound and realistic surround sound effects, as well as orchestrated music, are all very popular. Much more than abstract white noise, at least.

Quote:

And I still don't believe that MOST games have some grounding in reality (using the dictionary definition of reality). For example: - Magical Drop, Puyo Puyo - Tetris (doesn't have realistic gravity). - Chess - Checkers - Go - Uno - Chinese Checkers - Poker - Scrabble - Miscellaneous Card games with a 52-card deck, etc. Realism CAN be a source for some fun ideas - but the goal here it to seek FUN, not realism. This (I think) is the crux of Daniel Miller's point.

I wasn't talking about puzzle games, I mostly meant the other genres: FPS, RPG, RTS, Adventure, Action, Sports, Racing, Simulation, etc.

For what it's worth, I agree that fun is generally more important than realism (depending on the genre and goal of the game), but there is this stupid trend where when one person says "Adding this would make a game more realistic", everyone shouts "Realistic isn't fun!". Sometimes realistic is fun, sometimes it's not, and many times adding realism will also add fun. There seems to be this reactionary vibe here that any time anyone wants to add anything new to a game that's got something to do with reality, it's evil and must be stopped, but all the current reality-based things in games are fine, because that's "the way it's always been".

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Here's a precise example: I want to give you the ability to command units in an RPG-like game (spacecraft or people). Because the design is an RPG, not an RTS, I have to artificially limit the number of entities that you can control. There is no logical reason why your ability to command people shouldn't be unlimited. But there is a strict gameplay reason, which includes, among other things, getting overwhelmed, having the time to track everything, and the lack of interest RPG gamers have in playing full on empire games.

Actually, that's one of things that bugs me in most RPGs; that they don't give a reason why there's a limit on the number of characters in a team. Most of them just limit it to something between three and six, but they never explain why.

I'm not saying that I hate this limitation; the limitation is fine. I just want there to be a reason, even if (say in your case of spaceships) it's just something like "Starfleet says you can only command up to six vessels, no more!". Then I'm perfectly happy!

Quote:

The desire to remove all limitations or somehow come up with mumbo-jumbo explanations to explain away limits in gameplay or technology is a foolish exercise in jumping down a rabbit hole. Sometimes limits just are and most gamers don't even think twice about them.

Totally agree with you here!

Quote:

What about the possibility of losing the use of your weapon arm or a leg but not being in any danger of immediate death? What about a shot that incapacitates you but doesn't kill you, leaving you to bleed to death? Now, I have to wait around until I'm somehow put out of my misery (which isn't fun) so I can die (which isn't fun) which is all part of playing your game (which is sounding less and less fun).

What I find interesting about this is that Gemstone IV already implements a system where you can be lying dead for up to ten minutes and if someone doesn't save you, you end up with increased death penalties. While it is the most annoying part of the game, it isn't stopping people from playing the game. There are between 250 and 1000 people playing the game at any one moment. What this has encouraged is people to hunt in groups instead of solo so that if one is killed, the other can drag him back to town to get healed. There are also other mechanics that allow people to find and trasport to those who are dead.

What I'm trying to say is that the realism of death can add additional twists to the game because its not fun to be dead. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is fun does not always mean challenging (or vise versa) and some peopel like a challenge as much as fun (to a point...).

-Drethron

Quote:

There seems to be this reactionary vibe here that any time anyone wants to add anything new to a game that's got something to do with reality, it's evil and must be stopped, but all the current reality-based things in games are fine, because that's "the way it's always been".

Where the heck have you seen that? :P I haven't seen that anywhere on GameDev. You may be misunderstanding someone saying that a particular realistic feature would hurt the game.

Do you acknowledge that adding realism can ruin a game as much as it can help it? Did you see my Starcraft example?

I don't see why you are campaigning for realism in games. What do you think will be gained if you shove realism down games' throats? If you say, "It should be a case-by-case basis", then you aren't arguing for realism anymore.

Quote:

Do you acknowledge that adding realism can ruin a game as much as it can help it? Did you see my Starcraft example?

I think the problem from the realism camp (at least what I seem to see) is that those who are pointing out issues with adding realism are primarily stating you can't do it and here is why. Perhaps if it was written (from both sides) more of consider the problems this could impose, instead of simply it wont work, there would be more discussion than argument.

I could be wrong though...

-Drethron

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Quote: There seems to be this reactionary vibe here that any time anyone wants to add anything new to a game that's got something to do with reality, it's evil and must be stopped, but all the current reality-based things in games are fine, because that's "the way it's always been". Where the heck have you seen that? :P I haven't seen that anywhere on GameDev. You may be misunderstanding someone saying that a particular realistic feature would hurt the game.

Why, from such posts in this thread as these: ;)

Quote:

Games should only be realistic enough to suspend disbelief. The entire point is to escape from reality - but not so far away that you have nothing to go on.

Quote:

This argument is lame, if you ask me, because adding realism to games often ruins them (strategy games), but it can also help.

(emphasis mine)

Quote:

(...bad things, etc...) But that is the sort of thing that happens when developers rush to create complex realistic games.

Quote:

You should go by what is fun, which is not always what is realistic. Ignore realism. Completely.

So it's not that people are saying realism is always bad, but that it is usually bad, and I don't think that's true. It is, as you said, something that needs to be looked at on a case by case basis and will differ wildly depending on the genre, not something that's usually bad.

Quote:

Do you acknowledge that adding realism can ruin a game as much as it can help it? Did you see my Starcraft example?

Sure it can ruin it, but I don't think it always or even often ruins it. And I think some people will appreciate just the realism behind something even if it doesn't add directly to gameplay in a measurable way. HDR Lighting and ragdoll physics don't actually add fun gameplay, but people still appreciate them.
In your example of Starcraft, you don't seem to have a problem that they included the "realism" of needing resources to fund your troops instead of having infinite amounts, or the realism of needing to take cover in bunkers, or the realism of buildings taking time and costing resources instead of just giving you whatever you want whenever you want it. These were choices based on the "reality" of fighting a war, and they led to good gameplay. Friendly fire, as you said, might have hurt it, but friendly fire is in other games where it works well; like FPS's and RPG's.

Quote:

I don't see why you are campaigning for realism in games. What do you think will be gained if you shove realism down games' throats? If you say, "It should be a case-by-case basis", then you aren't arguing for realism anymore.

I'm not really aruging for realism in general; I just think "realism" gets tossed around like a bad word and something to be avoided. Someone says "So, I have this idea for my game that will make it more realistic and..." and then a bunch of people shout "Realism != Fun!!!", and dive on top of him, kicking him in the stomach and screeching, "How's that for realistic?! Bet your spleen is wishing I hadn't implemented that kick into it! Huh?!!"

...Well, maybe it's not that bad, but you know what I mean ;)

Quote:

Sure it can ruin it, but I don't think it always or even often ruins it. And I think some people will appreciate just the realism behind something even if it doesn't add directly to gameplay in a measurable way. HDR Lighting and ragdoll physics don't actually add fun gameplay, but people still appreciate them. In your example of Starcraft, you don't seem to have a problem that they included the "realism" of needing resources to fund your troops instead of having infinite amounts, or the realism of needing to take cover in bunkers, or the realism of buildings taking time and costing resources instead of just giving you whatever you want whenever you want it. These were choices based on the "reality" of fighting a war, and they led to good gameplay. Friendly fire, as you said, might have hurt it, but friendly fire is in other games where it works well; like FPS's and RPG's.

Actually, the things you mentioned aren't realistic at all. Buildings take about a minute (sometimes less) to complete, men "appear" in barracks after you build them, you can use minerals/vespene to build something on one side of the map that were mined on another side second earlier, several different buildings cost as much/less to build as traning three miners, etc. I could go on from there. The point is: they didn't say, "We need to have this, because it would add to the realism", they said, "We need to have this, because it would make the game better".

And you are making my point about friendly fire. What works for one game doesn't work for another. Case by case.

Now, let's look at some of those quotes you posted of mine. You seem to take everything as anti-realism. :P

Quote:

You should go by what is fun, which is not always what is realistic. Ignore realism. Completely.

That is not at all anti-realism. I am saying that you should ignore it when thinking about your game design, and you should instead look at what's fun. if it happens to be realistic, so be it.

Quote:

This argument is lame, if you ask me, because adding realism to games often ruins them (strategy games), but it can also help.

Yes, it does often ruin games, because people force it in games that it should not be in. I don't see what is anti-realism about that; it could be argued that most modern games fall under this category. It's not because there is something inherently wrong with realism, it's because it is one of the few things that gets forced into games.


The quotes from other people didn't seem bad either.

One thing I should add: if a game is realistic to the point where it has a wow-factor, then that can sell. But it quickly wears off, and you can't really duplicate the wow-factor from another game.

Quote:

I personally would like to see a game where you die by gunfire realistically.

You mean, like Ghost Recon 1 (PC)? Or something more? In Ghost Recon, usually one bullet would do you in, unless you got hit by a low calibre/outdated round on your body armor. If you got hit in the leg, and didn't die, you'd be limping around forever, until you died (or victory was achieved).

I loved that model. Many people didn't. Some people don't want to skulk around in the bushes or crawl around behind cover. Some people like unrealistically hopping around with infinite stamina broadsiding each other with shotguns.

Daniel Miller: Meh, you and I seem to basically be saying the same thing, that realism needs to be considered on a case by case basis. You just seem fed up with developers including annoying game elements in an attempt at realism, while I'm more fed up with people bashing the idea of realism as a whole because of the mistakes of a few other developers.

I don't have anything against realism; I just think that it shouldn't be used for the sake of being used.

[Edited by - Daniel Miller on July 7, 2005 4:29:36 PM]